911myths.com : WHY FAKING >73° BANK-ANGLES for a NoC FLYING PLANE.?

a reply to: skyeagle409

That won't work because my math is backed by documented physical evidence and the B-757 technical manual. Verdict: You have no case.

You have no case.

All you are doing is retelling the OS over and over again. I guess if you post the OS enough, people will start to believe it.
That's how propaganda works.

You have not debunk a single thing here, but only re-post 14 years of the OS and claiming it is all true.

a reply to: wildb

Review the following video and tell us, what did the news reporter say about what struck the Pentagon.

American 77 Crash Evidence

www.911myths.com...

a reply to: Informer1958

That won't work for you because the documented physical evidence speaks louder than words. In that regard, it's actually case-closed.

You have not debunk a single thing here,...

Of course I have and used documented physical evidence as well. BTW, you haven't answered my question about what struck the Pentagon? I want you to post your answer for all to see.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Review the video in the following video and tell us, what did the news reporter say about what struck the Pentagon.

American 77 Crash Evidence

www.911myths.com...

Joke of a video, SHE SAID I don't know where the Pentagon was in relation to where the plane went down...lol she was not sure.

a reply to: skyeagle409

That won't work for you because the documented physical evidence speaks louder than words. In that regard, it's actually case-closed.

That's right is wont work for me, because the fact is, everything you have presented is hearsay from the government and lacks any credibility, or any investigation.

The government believes their word is authority on 911 and all outside science into this matter MUST be ignored and ridiculed.

If you are trying to convince me the OS of the Pentagon crash is true, all I can say is you have failed miserably trying your very best to prove it to me.

I want to see some mathematics and some science behind your OS claims.

I want to see recorded serial numbers from the crash debris that proves they belong to said planes.

You have not given me or anyone else this information, because it does not exist.

The OS of the Pentagon does not make any sense at all, and it does not measure up to credible eyewitness accounts, and lack of crash debris and one missing engine.

a reply to: skyeagle409

American 77 Crash Evidence

www.911myths.com...

Your source is not credible.

a reply to: wildb

Joke of a video, SHE SAID I don't know where the Pentagon was in relation to where the plane went down...lol she was not sure.

Let's take another look, and tell us, what is being said in the video I posted from time line 1:00 to time line 2:00. Now, let's hear review these videos.

Video 1

Video 2

a reply to: Informer1958

That's right is wont work for me, because the fact is, everything you have presented is hearsay from the government and lacks any credibility, or any investigation.

False. Now, when can I expect an answer from you as to what struck the Pentagon, and then, I will ask LapTop what he thinks and compare your responses.

If you are trying to convince me the OS of the Pentagon crash is true, all I can say is you have failed miserably trying your very best to prove it to me.

You have to understand that the documented physical evidence doesn't depend on what you think.

The OS of the Pentagon does not make any sense at all, and it does not measure up to credible eyewitness accounts,...

The eyewitness accounts of a NoC flight path are debunked by the documented physical evidence.

a reply to: Informer1958

Prove it! I am waiting.

a reply to: skyeagle409

You have to understand that the documented physical evidence doesn't depend on what you think.

On the contrary it does.

The fact is You have no documented evidence that can verify the physical evidence.

False. Now, when can I expect an answer from you as to what struck the Pentagon, and then, I will ask LapTop what he thinks and compare your responses.

The fact is I never made any claim to what struck the Pentagon.

Your game is old, trying your best to pit ATS members against one another. Stop playing games and produce some real evidence.

The eyewitness accounts of a NoC flight path are debunked by the documented physical evidence.

That is untrue.

Your evidence is as phony as the OS eyewitness.

Prove it! I am waiting.

You believe you can turn the tables on me, it wont work.

Where is your math that proves LapTop is wrong?

a reply to: LaBTop

You've lost me somewhere on the flight through specifics, I'm sorrry.
Star for you!



The witnesses are pretty convincing, thanks for sharing! And to add some more:
www.911review.com...

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Apparently, not even LapTop would agree with you. Now, let's take a look at the wing tip from American 77.

Photo 1: American 77 Wreckage

Photo 2: American 77 Wreckage

*snip*

403'd on second link. Forbidden knowledge brought to us via SkyTV, eh?

Take this as a damning review with regards to your... source.

Prove it! I am waiting.

Been there, just done that (again).



This turned out to be another fascinating read.

And something else came to mind while following this discussion; are you folks overseas aware of concepts like... ehm... crime scene, evidence or investigation? I'm curious... you know... it looks like a friggen mess, just in case you missed that detail. And it doesn't really matter how you spin it.

Granted, there was an emergency going on, but why on hell did nobody take pictures of all the evidence they found? Why did seemingly nobody think: "Hey, they attacked the Pentagon - I wanna put every single piece of plane with all serial numbers in a big museum!" Never crossed your minds?
Also, all video tapes were confiscated. Ok, thanks for saving our data again alphabet agents! But wait... when do we get to see that movie, never ever? Obfuscation with a lot of smoke, mirrors and hush_hush mentality. Let me put it bluntly: who thinks there was nothing remotely fishy going on at all?

On a sidenote I tend to throw out Stars like money cause I love this place and it's people, even when I have some... ehm... issues taking some things without truckloads of see_salt. But I do honour the effort to put up, forbidden knowledge is funny as hell in this context though. Puns intended, all of 'em.

Have a great time whilst not meddling with 911myths or something and take another piece of Irony Iron!

a reply to: Informer1958

The documented physical evidence says you are incorrect, which of course, is backed by the fact that after 14 years, there is no evidence that supports your case.

Where is your math that proves LapTop is wrong?

I have posted it. As I have said, it proved that his math is flawed by the fact that American 77 could not have struck the Pentagon from his NoC flight path. I also underlined that fact when I posted the photo of the wing marks on the wall of the Pentagon. No swept-winged aircraft in the world could have made those marks from a NoC flight path.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

403'd on second link. Forbidden knowledge brought to us via SkyTV, eh?

Take this as a damning review with regards to your... source.

There is nothing in your link that refutes the facts and evidence from my sources. I also noticed this little write-up from your link.

Griffin also endorses the idea that phone calls from the passengers on Flight 93 may have been voice-morphed. That’s an idea I personally find very hard to believe. As far as I am aware, no families or co-workers of the passengers have ever expressed any doubts about the authenticity of those calls. And a convincing voice-morph would have required lengthy voice samples plus familiarity with the person’s idiosyncrasies. That being the case, it seems to me more likely that the “cell phone” calls were in fact Airfone calls, and that the cell phone vs. Airfone issue was merely an error in early reports.

Given the fact that I have always stated that the majority of phone calls were made on Airfones, not much more to say.

Been there, just done that (again).

It is apparent that you did not, and to prove it, post it here for all to see.

Granted, there was an emergency going on, but why on hell did nobody take pictures of all the evidence they found? Why did seemingly nobody think: "Hey, they attacked the Pentagon - I wanna put every single piece of plane with all serial numbers in a big museum!" Never crossed your minds?

We can take a look here.

Pentagon Memorial

American 77 Flight Crew

American Flight 77 victims at a glance

Pins from 9/11 flight crew members on display at Ft. Worth museum

Two important pins belonging to American Airlines crew members killed in the 9/11 Pentagon crash are now back with the airline.

They were found at the crash site at the Pentagon, and are now part of the C.R. Smith Museum in Fort Worth.

A center director for the USO in Delaware saw the two pins from the American Airlines crew of Flight 77 on display at Dover Air Force Base and contacted American Airlines about them.

911families.org...


Remembrance and Reflection: September 11, 2001

To mark the 10th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks, the National Museum of American History created a special experience for visitors to view 50 objects from the three sites—New York City; the Pentagon; and Shanksville, Pennsylvania—as well as recent acquisitions related to how American lives have changed since then. The objects were shown on open tables, without cases, and with limited interpretation. Museum staff was available to discuss the objects or answer questions, and visitors left their own stories by posting comment cards.

This slideshow offers a close-up look at many of the objects on display and an opportunity to remember and reflect. (

www.e-torch.org...

Also, all video tapes were confiscated.

Why would you advertise the full capability of your security cameras on the world stage? Air disasters have been solved without the aid of video cameras and if you wanted to know what aircraft crashed at the Pentagon, just ask American Airlines. After all, American Airlines announced the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon.

a reply to: wildb

Confirmation 1: Aircraft Struck the Pentagon

Confirmation 2: Aircraft Struck the Pentagon

Confirmation 3: Aircraft Struck the Pentagon

Confirmation 4: Aircraft Struck the Pentagon

Confirmation 5: Aircraft Struck the Pentagon

Confirmation 6: Aircraft Struck the Pentagon

Confirmation 7: American 77 Clipped Pole

Originally posted by: skyeagle409
A reply to: Informer1958

Inf1958 : So you do not have the math to debunk LaBTop?

se409 : We can look here.
Speed = 400 knots: (LT : ! ! ! )
West Turn Radius = 2834
Bank Angle = arctan(400^2/2834*11.26)
Bank Angle = 79 Degrees*
G Force = 5.2 G**

East Turn Radius = 1639
Bank Angle = arctan(400^2/1639*11.26)
Bank Angle = 83 Degrees*
As I have stated on a number of occasions, a B-757 was incapable of such maneuvering from a NoC flight path in order to cause the documented physical evidence seen inside and outside the Pentagon.

Inf1958 : You make the claim that LaBTop is wrong, and the fact is, you have failed to prove him wrong.

se409 : It has already been done.

Now that's really enormously gross. See why : my OPs on page 1.
That's a clear case of deliberate FALSIFICATION and EXAGGERATION of other members their RESEARCH data, you are deceitfully switching speed data from the SoC path its registered 400+ KTS speeds, to falsify the NoC speed.

While that speed was in reality only 250 KTS max, as registered by bank angles of max 35 degrees, described by all valuable 25 NoC eyewitnesses. And to such an angle can only speeds of 230 to 250 KTS fit, to let these speeds fit also in my drawn curved flight path with a radius of 2054 meters, that also fits ALL the eyewitness positions. See the drawings and my HONEST ON-LINE bank angle calculations in my OPs on page 1 and 2.

I am puzzled how to counter this kind of dishonesty, when it does not result in any form of corrective intervention.
I am really curious what happens now.

a reply to: LaBTop

Now that's really enormously gross. See why : my OPs on page 1.
That's a clear case of deliberate FALSIFICATION and EXAGGERATION of other members their RESEARCH data, you are deceitfully switching speed data from the SoC path its registered 400+ KTS speeds, to falsify the NoC speed.

And to such an angle can only speeds of 230 to 250 KTS fit, to let these speeds fit also in my drawn curved flight path with a radius of 2054 meters, that also fits ALL the eyewitness positions. See the drawings and my HONEST ON-LINE bank angle calculations in my OPs on page 1 and 2.

That won't fly. American 77 never flew slower than 400 knots in the final seconds before impact. Even at 200 knots during its banking maneuver, it would have been impossible for the right wing of American 77 to inflict the impact damage seen on the wall of the Pentagon, which indicated that American 77 was in a slight left bank.

It is very clear that you do not have a case for a NoC flight path. and pilots do not agree with you either, and remember, documented physical evidence debunks the case for a NoC flight path as well.

Now, let's do a review the NoC depiction in the following photo.

NoC and SoC Flight Path Depiction

There are no downed light poles that would have indicated a NoC flight path. However, it is very clear that the documented downed light poles proved that American 77 flew a SoC flight path.

Now, let's review the wing marks on the wall of the Pentagon.

Right Wing Impact Damage on Pentagon Wall

The angle of the right wing impact damage clearly indicates that American 77 was in a slight left bank at the time of impact, which proves beyond a shadow of the doubt that American 77 inflicted that damage from a SoC flight path since it would have been impossible from a NoC flight path

Now, let's go here because from a NoC flight path, it would have been impossible for American 77 to create that punch out hole on the C-ring hole.

NoC vs. SoC Flight Path

To sum it up, it has been proven, that American 77 did not fly a NoC flight path.

a reply to: skyeagle409

The documented physical evidence says you are incorrect, which of course, is backed by the fact that after 14 years, there is no evidence that supports your case.

I disagree.

You have no credible documented evidence. which of course, is backed by the fact that after 14 years, there is no evidence that supports your case.

We both can repeat this sentence all day long.

Same sentence, after 14 years there were no explosions at the WTC, there is no evidence of demolition after 14 years the OS still remains official.

se409 : We can look here.
Speed = 400 knots: (LT : ! ! ! )
West Turn Radius = 2834
Bank Angle = arctan(400^2/2834*11.26)
Bank Angle = 79 Degrees*
G Force = 5.2 G**

East Turn Radius = 1639
Bank Angle = arctan(400^2/1639*11.26)
Bank Angle = 83 Degrees*
As I have stated on a number of occasions, a B-757 was incapable of such maneuvering from a NoC flight path in order to cause the documented physical evidence seen inside and outside the Pentagon.

Still waiting for your math to prove LapTop is wrong?

You say you provided us with your math, but for the life of me I cant find it? Please show me where you posted your math that debunks LapTop mathematics?

a reply to: Informer1958

se409 : We can look here.
Speed = 400 knots: (LT : ! ! ! )
West Turn Radius = 2834
Bank Angle = arctan(400^2/2834*11.26)
Bank Angle = 79 Degrees*
G Force = 5.2 G**

East Turn Radius = 1639
Bank Angle = arctan(400^2/1639*11.26)
Bank Angle = 83 Degrees*

It proves that his NoC math is incorrect. BTW, you have yet to answer the question as to what struck the Pentagon, so why are you stallling? Could it be that what your claim conflicts with what LapTop has said?

a reply to: skyeagle409

It proves that his NoC math is incorrect.

Where?